great man essay

I T IS NATURAL to believe in great men. If the companions of our childhood should turn out to be heroes, and their condition regal it would not surprise us. All mythology opens with demigods, and the circumstance is high and poetic; that is, their genius is paramount. In the legends of the Gautama, the first men ate the earth and found it deliciously sweet.

Nature seems to exist for the excellent. The world is upheld by the veracity of good men: they make the earth wholesome. They who lived with them found life glad and nutritious. Life is sweet and tolerable only in our belief in such society; and, actually or ideally, we manage to live with superiors. We call our children and our lands by their names. Their names are wrought into the verbs of language, their works and effigies are in our houses, and every circumstance of the day recalls an anecdote of them.

The search after the great man is the dream of youth and the most serious occupation of manhood. We travel into foreign parts to find his works,- if possible, to get a glimpse of him. But we are put off with fortune instead. You say, the English are practical; the Germans are hospitable; in Valencia the climate is delicious; and in the hills of the Sacramento there is gold for the gathering. Yes, but I do not travel to find comfortable, rich and hospitable people, or clear sky, or ingots that cost too much. But if there were any magnet that would point to the countries and houses where are the persons who are intrinsically rich and powerful, I would sell all and buy it, and put myself on the road today.

The race goes with us on their credit. The knowledge that in the city is a man who invented the railroad, raises the credit of all the citizens. But enormous populations, if they be beggars, are disgusting, like moving cheese, like hills of ants or of fleas,- the more, the worse.

If now we proceed to inquire into the kinds of service we derive from others, let us be warned of the danger of modern studies, and begin low enough. We must not contend against love, or deny the substantial existence of other people. I know not what would happen to us. We have social strengths. Our affection toward others creates a sort of vantage or purchase which nothing will supply. I can do that by another which I cannot do alone. I can say to you what I cannot first say to myself. Other men are lenses through which we read our own minds. Each man seeks those of different quality from his own, and such as are good of their kind; that is, he seeks other men, and the otherest. The stronger the nature, the more it is reactive. Let us have the quality pure. A little genius let us leave alone. A main difference betwixt men is, whether they attend their own affair or not. Man is that noble endogenous plant which grows, like the palm, from within outward. His own affair, though impossible to others, he can open with celerity and in sport. It is easy to sugar to be sweet and to nitre to be salt. We take a great deal of pains to waylay and entrap that which of itself will fall into our hands. I count him a great man who inhabits a higher sphere of thought, into which other men rise with labor and difficulty; he has but to open his eyes to see things in a true light and in large relations, whilst they must make painful corrections and keep a vigilant eye on many sources of error. His service to us is of like sort. It costs a beautiful person no exertion to paint her image on our eyes; yet how splendid is that benefit! It costs no more for a wise soul to convey his quality to other men. And every one can do his best thing easiest. "Peu de moyens, beaucoup d'effet." He is great who is what he is from nature, and who never reminds us of others.

But he must be related to us, and our life receive from him some promise of explanation. I cannot tell what I would know; but I have observed there are persons who, in their character and actions, answer questions which I have not skill to put. One man answers some question which none of his contemporaries put, and is isolated. The past and passing religions and philosophies answer some other questions. Certain men affect us as rich possibilities, but helpless to themselves and to their times,- the sport perhaps of some instinct that rules in the air;- they do not speak to our want. But the great are near; we know them at sight. They satisfy expectation and fall into place. What is good is effective, generative; makes for itself room, food and allies. A sound apple produces seed,- a hybrid does not. Is a man in his place, he is constructive, fertile, magnetic, inundating armies with his purpose, which is thus executed. The river makes its own shores, and each legitimate idea makes its own channels and welcome,- harvests for food, institutions for expression, weapons to fight with and disciples to explain it. The true artist has the planet for his pedestal; the adventurer, after years of strife, has nothing broader than his own shoes.

Our common discourse respects two kinds of use or service from superior men. Direct giving is agreeable to the early belief of men; direct giving of material or metaphysical aid, as of health, eternal youth, fine senses, arts of healing, magical power and prophecy. The boy believes there is a teacher who can sell him wisdom. Churches believe in imputed merit. But, in strictness, we are not much cognizant of direct serving. Man is endogenous, and education is his unfolding. The aid we have from others is mechanical compared with the discoveries of nature in us. What is thus learned is delightful in the doing, and the effect remains. Right ethics are central and go from the soul outward. Gift is contrary to the law of the universe. Serving others is serving us. I must absolve me to myself. "Mind thy affair," says the spirit:- "coxcomb, would you meddle with the skies, or with other people?" Indirect service is left. Men have a pictorial or representative quality, and serve us in the intellect. Behmen *(1) and Swedenborg saw that things were representative. Men are also representative; first, of things, and secondly, of ideas.

As plants convert the minerals into food for animals, so each man converts some raw material in nature to human use. The inventors of fire, electricity, magnetism, iron, lead, glass, linen, silk, cotton; the makers of tools; the inventor of decimal notation; the geometer; the engineer; the musician,- severally make an easy way for all, through unknown and impossible confusions. Each man is by secret liking connected with some district of nature, whose agent and interpreter he is; as Linnaeus, of plants; Huber, of bees; Fries, of lichens; Van Mons, of pears; Dalton, of atomic forms; Euclid, of lines; Newton, of fluxions.

A man is a centre for nature, running out threads of relation through every thing, fluid and solid, material and elemental. The earth rolls; every clod and stone comes to the meridian: so every organ, function, acid, crystal, grain of dust, has its relation to the brain. It waits long, but its turn comes. Each plant has its parasite, and each created thing its lover and poet. Justice has already been done to steam, to iron, to wood, to coal, to loadstone, to iodine, to corn and cotton; but how few materials are yet used by our arts The mass of creatures and of qualities are still hid and expectant. It would seem as if each waited, like the enchanted princess in fairy tales, for a destined human deliverer. Each must be disenchanted and walk forth to the day in human shape. In the history of discovery, the ripe and latent truth seems to have fashioned a brain for itself. A magnet must be made man in some Gilbert *(2) , or Swedenborg , or Oerstad, before the general mind can come to entertain its powers.

If we limit ourselves to the first advantages, a sober grace adheres to the mineral and botanic kingdoms, which, in the highest moments, comes up as the charm of nature,- the glitter of the spar, the sureness of affinity, the veracity of angles. Light and darkness, heat and cold, hunger and food, sweet and sour, solid, liquid and gas, circle us round in a wreath of pleasures, and, by their agreeable quarrel, beguile the day of life. The eye repeats every day the first eulogy on things,- "He saw that they were good." We know where to find them; and these performers are relished all the more, after a little experience of the pretending races. We are entitled also to higher advantages. Something is wanting to science until it has been humanized. The table of logarithms is one thing, and its vital play in botany, music, optics and architecture, another. There are advancements to numbers, anatomy, architecture, astronomy, little suspected at first, when, by union with intellect and will, they ascend into the life and reappear in conversation, character and politics.

But this comes later. We speak now only of our acquaintance with them in their own sphere and the way in which they seem to fascinate and draw to them some genius who occupies himself with one thing, all his life long. The possibility of interpretation lies in the identity of the observer with the observed. Each material thing has its celestial side; has its translation, through humanity, into the spiritual and necessary sphere where it plays a part as indestructible as any other. And to these, their ends, all things continually ascend. The gases gather to the solid firmament: the chemic lump arrives at the plant, and grows; arrives at the quadruped, and walks; arrives at the man, and thinks. But also the constituency determines the vote of the representative. He is not only representative, but participant. Like can only be known by like. The reason why he knows about them is that he is of them; he has just come out of nature, or from being a part of that thing. Animated chlorine knows of chlorine, and incarnate zinc, of zinc. Their quality makes his career; and he can variously publish their virtues, because they compose him. Man, made of the dust of the world, does not forget his origin; and all that is yet inanimate will one day speak and reason. Unpublished nature will have its whole secret told. Shall we say that quartz mountains will pulverize into innumerable Werners, Von Buchs and Beaumonts, and the laboratory of the atmosphere holds in solution I know not what Berzeliuses and Davys?

Thus we sit by the fire and take hold on the poles of the earth. This quasi omnipresence supplies the imbecility of our condition. In one of those celestial days when heaven and earth meet and adorn each other, it seems a poverty that we can only spend it once: we wish for a thousand heads, a thousand bodies, that we might celebrate its immense beauty in many ways and places. Is this fancy? Well, in good faith, we are multiplied by our proxies. How easily we adopt their labors! Every ship that comes to America got its chart from Columbus. Every novel is a debtor to Homer. Every carpenter who shaves with a fore-plane borrows the genius of a forgotten inventor. Life is girt all round with a zodiac of sciences, the contributions of men who have perished to add their point of light to our sky. Engineer, broker, jurist, physician, moralist, theologian, and every man, inasmuch as he has any science,- is a definer and map-maker of the latitudes and longitudes of our condition. These roadmakers on every hand enrich us. We must extend the area of life and multiply our relations. We are as much gainers by finding a new property in the old earth as by acquiring a new planet.

We are too passive in the reception of these material or semi-material aids. We must not be sacks and stomachs. To ascend one step,- we are better served through our sympathy. Activity is contagious. Looking where others look, and conversing with the same things, we catch the charm which lured them. Napoleon said, "You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war." Talk much with any man of vigorous mind, and we acquire very fast the habit of looking at things in the same light, and on each occurrence we anticipate his thought.

Men are helpful through the intellect and the affections. Other help I find a false appearance. If you affect to give me bread and fire, I perceive that I pay for it the full price, and at last it leaves me as it found me, neither better nor worse: but all mental and moral force is a positive good. It goes out from you, whether you will or not, and profits me whom you never thought of. I cannot even hear of personal vigor of any kind, great power of performance, without fresh resolution. We are emulous of all that man can do. Cecil's saying of Sir Walter Raleigh, "I know that he can toil terribly," is an electric touch. So are Clarendon's portraits,- of Hampden, "who was of an industry and vigilance not to be tired out or wearied by the most laborious, and of parts not to be imposed on by the most subtle and sharp, and of a personal courage equal to his best parts";- of Falkland, "who was so severe an adorer of truth, that he could as easily have given himself leave to steal, as to dissemble." We cannot read Plutarch without a tingling of the blood; and I accept the saying of the Chinese Mencius: "A sage is the instructor of a hundred ages. When the manners of Loo are heard of, the stupid become intelligent, and the wavering, determined."

This is the moral of biography; yet it is hard for departed men to touch the quick like our own companions, whose names may not last as long. What is he whom I never think of? Whilst in every solitude are those who succor our genius and stimulate us in wonderful manners. There is a power in love to divine another's destiny better than that other can, and, by heroic encouragements, hold him to his task. What has friendship so signal as its sublime attraction to whatever virtue is in us? We will never more think cheaply of ourselves, or of life. We are piqued to some purpose, and the industry of the diggers on the railroad will not again shame us.

Under this head too falls that homage, very pure as I think, which all ranks pay to the hero of the day, from Coriolanus and Gracchus down to Pitt, Lafayette, Wellington, Webster, Lamartine. Hear the shouts in the street! The people cannot see him enough. They delight in a man. Here is a head and a trunk! What a front! what eyes! Atlantean shoulders, and the whole carriage heroic, with equal inward force to guide the great machine! This pleasure of full expression to that which, in their private experience, is usually cramped and obstructed, runs also much higher, and is the secret of the reader's joy in literary genius. Nothing is kept back. There is fire enough to fuse the mountain of ore. Shakespeare's principal merit may be conveyed in saying that he of all men best understands the English language, and can say what he will. Yet these unchoked channels and floodgates of expression are only health or fortunate constitution. Shakespeare's name suggests other and purely intellectual benefits.

Senates and sovereigns have no compliment, with their medals, swords and armorial coats, like the addressing to a human being thoughts out of a certain height, and presupposing his intelligence. This honor, which is possible in personal intercourse scarcely twice in a lifetime, genius perpetually pays; contented if now and then in a century the proffer is accepted. The indicators of the values of matter are degraded to a sort of cooks and confectioners, on the appearance of the indicators of ideas. Genius is the naturalist or geographer of the supersensible regions, and draws their map; and, by acquainting us with new fields of activity, cools our affection for the old. These are at once accepted as the reality, of which the world we have conversed with is the show.

We go to the gymnasium and the swimming-school to see the power and beauty of the body; there is the like pleasure and a higher benefit from witnessing intellectual feats of all kinds; as feats of memory, of mathematical combination, great power of abstraction, the transmutings of the imagination, even versatility and concentration,- as these acts expose the invisible organs and members of the mind, which respond, member for member, to the parts of the body. For we thus enter a new gymnasium, and learn to choose men by their truest marks, taught, with Plato, "to choose those who can, without aid from the eyes or any other sense, proceed to truth and to being." Foremost among these activities are the summersaults, spells and resurrections wrought by the imagination. When this wakes, a man seems to multiply ten times or a thousand times his force. It opens the delicious sense of indeterminate size and inspires an audacious mental habit. We are as elastic as the gas of gunpowder, and a sentence in a book, or a word dropped in conversation, sets free our fancy, and instantly our heads are bathed with galaxies, and our feet tread the floor of the Pit. And this benefit is real because we are entitled to these enlargements, and once having passed the bounds shall never again be quite the miserable pedants we were.

The high functions of the intellect are so allied that some imaginative power usually appears in all eminent minds, even in arithmeticians of the first class, but especially in meditative men of an intuitive habit of thought. This class serve us, so that they have the perception of identity and the perception of reaction. The eyes of Plato, Shakespeare, Swedenborg , Goethe , never shut on either of these laws. The perception of these laws is a kind of metre of the mind. Little minds are little through failure to see them.

Even these feasts have their surfeit. Our delight in reason degenerates into idolatry of the herald. Especially when a mind of powerful method has instructed men, we find the examples of oppression. The dominion of Aristotle, the Ptolemaic astronomy, the credit of Luther, of Bacon, of Locke;- in religion the history of hierarchies, of saints, and the sects which have taken the name of each founder, are in point. Alas! every man is such a victim. The imbecility of men is always inviting the impudence of power. It is the delight of vulgar talent to dazzle and to blind the beholder. But true genius seeks to defend us from itself. True genius will not impoverish, but will liberate, and add new senses. If a wise man should appear in our village he would create, in those who conversed with him, a new consciousness of wealth, by opening their eyes to unobserved advantages; he would establish a sense of immovable equality, calm us with assurances that we could not be cheated; as every one would discern the checks and guaranties of condition. The rich would see their mistakes and poverty, the poor their escapes and their resources.

But nature brings all this about in due time. Rotation is her remedy. The soul is impatient of masters and eager for change. Housekeepers say of a domestic who has been valuable, "She had lived with me long enough." We are tendencies, or rather, symptoms, and none of us complete. We touch and go, and sip the foam of many lives. Rotation is the law of nature. When nature removes a great man, people explore the horizon for a successor; but none comes, and none will. His class is extinguished with him. In some other and quite different field the next man will appear; not Jefferson, not Franklin, but now a great salesman, then a road-contractor, then a student of fishes, then a buffalo-hunting explorer, or a semi-savage Western general. Thus we make a stand against our rougher masters; but against the best there is a finer remedy. The power which they communicate is not theirs. When we are exalted by ideas, we do not owe this to Plato, but to the idea, to which also Plato was debtor.

I must not forget that we have a special debt to a single class. Life is a scale of degrees. Between rank and rank of our great men are wide intervals. Mankind have in all ages attached themselves to a few persons who either by the quality of that idea they embodied or by the largeness of their reception were entitled to the position of leaders and law-givers. These teach us the qualities of primary nature,- admit us to the constitution of things. We swim, day by day, on a river of delusions and are effectually amused with houses and towns in the air, of which the men about us are dupes. But life is a sincerity. In lucid intervals we say, "Let there be an entrance opened for me into realities; *(3) I have worn the fool's cap too long." We will know the meaning of our economies and politics. Give us the cipher, and if persons and things are scores of a celestial music, let us read off the strains. We have been cheated of our reason; yet there have been sane men, who enjoyed a rich and related existence. What they know, they know for us. With each new mind, a new secret of nature transpires; nor can the Bible be closed until the last great man is born. These men correct the delirium of the animal spirits, make us considerate and engage us to new aims and powers. The veneration of mankind selects these for the highest place. Witness the multitude of statues, pictures and memorials which recall their genius in every city, village, house and ship:-

"Ever their phantoms arise before us, Our loftier brothers, but one in blood; At bed and table they lord it o'er us With looks of beauty and words of good."

How to illustrate the distinctive benefit of ideas, the service rendered by those who introduce moral truths into the general mind?- I am plagued, in all my living, with a perpetual tariff of prices. If I work in my garden and prune an apple-tree, I am well enough entertained, and could continue indefinitely in the like occupation. But it comes to mind that a day is gone, and I have got this precious nothing done. I go to Boston or New York and run up and down on my affairs: they are sped, but so is the day. I am vexed by the recollection of this price I have paid for a trifling advantage. I remember the peau d'ane on which whoso sat should have his desire, but a piece of the skin was gone for every wish. I go to a convention of philanthropists. Do what I can, I cannot keep my eyes off the clock. But if there should appear in the company some gentle soul who knows little of persons or parties, of Carolina or Cuba, but who announces a law that disposes these particulars, and so certifies me of the equity which checkmates every false player, bankrupts every self-seeker, and apprises me of my independence on any conditions of country, or time, or human body,- that man liberates me; I forget the clock. I pass out of the sore relation to persons. I am healed of my hurts. I am made immortal by apprehending my possession of incorruptible goods. Here is great competition of rich and poor. We live in a market, where is only so much wheat, or wool, or land; and if I have so much more, every other must have so much less. I seem to have no good without breach of good manners. Nobody is glad in the gladness of another, and our system is one of war, of an injurious superiority. Every child of the Saxon race is educated to wish to be first. It is our system; and a man comes to measure his greatness by the regrets, envies and hatreds of his competitors. But in these new fields there is room: here are no self-esteems, no exclusions.

I admire great men of all classes, those who stand for facts, and for thoughts; I like rough and smooth, "Scourges of God," and "Darlings of the human race." I like the first Caesar; and Charles V, of Spain; and Charles XII, of Sweden; Richard Plantagenet; and Bonaparte, in France. I applaud a sufficient man, an officer equal to his office; captains, ministers, senators. I like a master standing firm on legs of iron, wellborn, rich, handsome, eloquent, loaded with advantages, drawing all men by fascination into tributaries and supporters of his power. Sword and staff, or talents sword-like or staff-like, carry on the work of the world. But I find him greater when he can abolish himself and all heroes, by letting in this element of reason, irrespective of persons, this subtilizer and irresistible upward force, into our thought, destroying individualism; the power so great that the potentate is nothing. Then he is a monarch who gives a constitution to his people; a pontiff who preaches the equality of souls and releases his servants from their barbarous homages; an emperor who can spare his empire.

But I intended to specify, with a little minuteness, two or three points of service. Nature never spares the opium or nepenthe, but wherever she mars her creature with some deformity or defect, lays her poppies plentifully on the bruise, and the sufferer goes joyfully through life, ignorant of the ruin and incapable of seeing it, though all the world point their finger at it every day. The worthless and offensive members of society, whose existence is a social pest, invariably think themselves the most ill-used people alive, and never get over their astonishment at the ingratitude and selfishness of their contemporaries. Our globe discovers its hidden virtues, not only in heroes and archangels, but in gossips and nurses. Is it not a rare contrivance that lodged the due inertia in every creature, the conserving, resisting energy, the anger at being waked or changed? Altogether independent of the intellectual force in each is the pride of opinion, the security that we are right. Not the feeblest grandame, not a mowing idiot, but uses what spark of perception and faculty is left, to chuckle and triumph in his or her opinion over the absurdities of all the rest. Difference from me is the measure of absurdity. Not one has a misgiving of being wrong. Was it not a bright thought that made things cohere with this bitumen, fastest of cements? But, in the midst of this chuckle of self-gratulation, some figure goes by which Thersites too can love and admire. This is he that should marshal us the way we were going. There is no end to his aid. Without Plato we should almost lose our faith in the possibility of a reasonable book. We seem to want but one, but we want one. We love to associate with heroic persons, since our receptivity is unlimited; and, with the great, our thoughts and manners easily become great. We are all wise in capacity, though so few in energy. There needs but one wise man in a company and all are wise, so rapid is the contagion.

Great men are thus a collyrium to clear our eyes from egotism and enable us to see other people and their works. But there are vices and follies incident to whole populations and ages. Men resemble their contemporaries even more than their progenitors. It is observed in old couples, or in persons who have been housemates for a course of years, that they grow like, and if they should live long enough we should not be able to know them apart. Nature abhors these complaisances which threaten to melt the world into a lump, and hastens to break up such maudlin agglutinations. The like assimilation goes on between men of one town, of one sect, of one political party; and the ideas of the time are in the air, and infect all who breathe it. Viewed from any high point, this city of New York, yonder city of London, the Western civilization, would seem a bundle of insanities. We keep each other in countenance and exasperate by emulation the frenzy of the time. The shield against the stingings of conscience is the universal practice, or our contemporaries. Again, it is very easy to be as wise and good as your companions. We learn of our contemporaries what they know without effort, and almost through the pores of the skin. We catch it by sympathy, or as a wife arrives at the intellectual and moral elevations of her husband. But we stop where they stop. Very hardly can we take another step. The great, or such as hold of nature and transcend fashions by their fidelity to universal ideas, are saviors from these federal errors, *(4) and defend us from our contemporaries. They are the exceptions which we want, where all grows like. A foreign greatness is the antidote for cabalism.

Thus we feed on genius, and refresh ourselves from too much conversation with our mates, and exult in the depth of nature in that direction in which he leads us. What indemnification is one great man for populations of pigmies! Every mother wishes one son a genius, though all the rest should be mediocre. But a new danger appears in the excess of influence of the great man. His attractions warp us from our place. We have become underlings and intellectual suicides. Ah! yonder in the horizon is our help;- other great men, new qualities, counterweights and checks on each other. We cloy of the honey of each peculiar greatness. Every hero becomes a bore at last. Perhaps Voltaire was not bad-hearted, yet he said of the good Jesus, even, "I pray you, let me never hear that man's name again." They cry up the virtues of George Washington,- "Damn George Washington!" is the poor Jacobin's whole speech and confutation. But it is human nature's indispensable defence. The centripetence augments the centrifugence. We balance one man with his opposite, and the health of the state depends on the see-saw.

There is however a speedy limit to the use of heroes. Every genius is defended from approach by quantities of unavailableness. They are very attractive, and seem at a distance our own: but we are hindered on all sides from approach. The more we are drawn, the more we are repelled. There is something not solid in the good that is done for us. The best discovery the discoverer makes for himself. It has something unreal for his companion until he too has substantiated it. It seems as if the Deity dressed each soul which he sends into nature in certain virtues and powers not communicable to other men, and sending it to perform one more turn through the circle of beings, wrote, "Not transferable" and "Good for this trip only," on these garments of the soul. There is somewhat deceptive about the intercourse of minds. The boundaries are invisible, but they are never crossed. There is such good will to impart, and such good will to receive, that each threatens to become the other; but the law of individuality collects its secret strength: you are you, and I am I, and so we remain.

For nature wishes every thing to remain itself; and whilst every individual strives to grow and exclude and to exclude and grow, to the extremities of the universe, and to impose the law of its being on every other creature, Nature steadily aims to protect each against every other. Each is self-defended. Nothing is more marked than the power by which individuals are guarded from individuals, in a world where every benefactor becomes so easily a malefactor only by continuation of his activity into places where it is not due; where children seem so much at the mercy of their foolish parents, and where almost all men are too social and interfering. We rightly speak of the guardian angels of children. How superior in their security from infusions of evil persons, from vulgarity and second thought! They shed their own abundant beauty on the objects they behold. Therefore they are not at the mercy of such poor educators as we adults. If we huff and chide them they soon come not to mind it and get a self-reliance ; and if we indulge them to folly, they learn the limitation elsewhere.

We need not fear excessive influence. A more generous trust is permitted. Serve the great. Stick at no humiliation. Grudge no office thou canst render. Be the limb of their body, the breath of their mouth. Compromise thy egotism. Who cares for that, so thou gain aught wider and nobler? Never mind the taunt of Boswellism: the devotion may easily be greater than the wretched pride which is guarding its own skirts. Be another: not thyself, but a Platonist; not a soul, but a Christian; not a naturalist, but a Cartesian; not a poet, but a Shakespearean. In vain, the wheels of tendency will not stop, nor will all the forces of inertia, fear, or of love itself hold thee there. On, and forever onward! The microscope observes a monad or wheel-insect among the infusories circulating in water. Presently a dot appears on the animal, which enlarges to a slit, and it becomes two perfect animals. The ever-proceeding detachment appears not less in all thought and in society. Children think they cannot live without their parents. But, long before they are aware of it, the black dot has appeared and the detachment taken place. Any accident will now reveal to them their independence.

But great men:- the word is injurious. Is there caste? Is there fate? What becomes of the promise to virtue? The thoughtful youth laments the superfoetation of nature. "Generous and handsome," he says, "is your hero; but look at yonder poor Paddy, whose country is his wheelbarrow; look at his whole nation of Paddies." Why are the masses, from the dawn of history down, food for knives and powder? The idea dignifies a few leaders, who have sentiment, opinion, love, self-devotion; and they make war and death sacred;- but what for the wretches whom they hire and kill? The cheapness of man is every day's tragedy. It is as real a loss that others should be as low as that we should be low; for we must have society.

Is it a reply to these suggestions to say, Society is a Pestalozzian school: all are teachers and pupils in turn? We are equally served by receiving and by imparting. Men who know the same things are not long the best company for each other. But bring to each an intelligent person of another experience, and it is as if you let off water from a lake by cutting a lower basin. It seems a mechanical advantage, and great benefit it is to each speaker, as he can now paint out his thought to himself. We pass very fast, in our personal moods, from dignity to dependence. And if any appear never to assume the chair, but always to stand and serve, it is because we do not see the company in a sufficiently long period for the whole rotation of parts to come about. As to what we call the masses, and common men,- there are no common men. All men are at last of a size; and true art is only possible on the conviction that every talent has its apotheosis somewhere. Fair play and an open field and freshest laurels to all who have won them! But heaven reserves an equal scope for every creature. Each is uneasy until he has produced his private ray unto the concave sphere and beheld his talent also in its last nobility and exaltation.

The heroes of the hour are relatively great; of a faster growth; or they are such in whom, at the moment of success, a quality is ripe which is then in request. Other days will demand other qualities. Some rays escape the common observer, and want a finely adapted eye. Ask the great man if there be none greater. His companions are; and not the less great but the more that society cannot see them. Nature never sends a great man into the planet without confiding the secret to another soul.

One gracious fact emerges from these studies,- that there is true ascension in our love. The reputations of the nineteenth century will one day be quoted to prove its barbarism. The genius of humanity is the real subject whose biography is written in our annals. We must infer much, and supply many chasms in the record. The history of the universe is symptomatic, and life is mnemonical. No man, in all the procession of famous men, is reason or illumination or that essence we were looking for; but is an exhibition, in some quarter, of new possibilities. Could we one day complete the immense figure which these flagrant *(5) points compose! The study of many individuals leads us to an elemental region wherein the individual is lost, or wherein all touch by their summits. Thought and feeling that break out there cannot be impounded by any fence of personality. This is the key to the power of the greatest men,- their spirit diffuses itself. A new quality of mind travels by night and by day, in concentric circles from its origin, and publishes itself by unknown methods: the union of all minds appears intimate; what gets admission to one, cannot be kept out of any other; the smallest acquisition of truth or of energy, in any quarter, is so much good to the commonwealth of souls. If the disparities of talent and position vanish when the individuals are seen in the duration which is necessary to complete the career of each, even more swiftly the seeming injustice disappears when we ascend to the central identity of all the individuals, and know that they are made of the substance which ordaineth and doeth.

The genius of humanity is the right point of view of history. The qualities abide; the men who exhibit them have now more, now less, and pass away; the qualities remain on another brow. No experience is more familiar. Once you saw phoenixes: they are gone; the world is not therefore disenchanted. The vessels on which you read sacred emblems turn out to be common pottery; but the sense of the pictures is sacred, and you may still read them transferred to the walls of the world. For a time our teachers serve us personally, as metres or milestones of progress. Once they were angels of knowledge and their figures touched the sky. Then we drew near, saw their means, culture and limits; and they yielded their place to other geniuses. Happy, if a few names remain so high that we have not been able to read them nearer, and age and comparison have not robbed them of a ray. But at last we shall cease to look in men for completeness, and shall content ourselves with their social and delegated quality. All that respects the individual is temporary and prospective, like the individual himself, who is ascending out of his limits into a catholic existence. We have never come at the true and best benefit of any genius so long as we believe him an original force. In the moment when he ceases to help us as a cause, he begins to help us more as an effect. Then he appears as an exponent of a vaster mind and will. The opaque self becomes transparent with the light of the First Cause.

Yet, within the limits of human education and agency, we may say great men exist that there may be greater men. The destiny of organized nature is amelioration, and who can tell its limits? It is for man to tame the chaos; on every side, whilst he lives, to scatter the seeds of science and of song, that climate, corn, animals, men, may be milder, and the germs of love and benefit may be multiplied. *(6)

Ralph Waldo Emerson left the ministry to pursue a career in writing and public speaking. Emerson became one of America's best known and best-loved 19th-century figures. More About Emerson

Quick Links

Self-reliance.

• Address at Divinity College
• English Traits
• Representative Men
• The American Scholar
• The Conduct of Life
• Essays: First Series
• Essays: Second Series
• Nature: Addresses/Lectures
• Lectures / Biographies
• Letters and Social Aims

Early Emerson Poems

• Uncollected Prose
• Government of Children

Emerson Quotes

"Every man has his own courage, and is betrayed because he seeks in himself the courage of other persons." – Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”  – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson's Essays

Research the collective works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Read More Essay

Emerson's most famous work that can truly change your life. Check it out

America's best known and best-loved poems. More Poems

• Media Center

Great Man Theory

What is the great man theory.

The Great Man Theory posits that leaders are born, not made. 1 This theory suggests that individuals rise to positions of power due to inherent traits rather than acquired skills. According to this perspective, this naturally predisposes certain people to leadership, making them naturally suited to lead and inspire others.

The Basic Idea

If someone asked you to think of a great leader, who would come to mind? If asked to explain your reasoning, are there certain characteristics you would point out, or certain choices you would say proved their leadership abilities?

Great leaders come forward when they’re most needed, in order to become the foundation upon which history is built. Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes.

No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men. – Thomas Carlyle, Scottish historian and author of On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History

The Great Man Theory is mostly associated with Thomas Carlyle, who looked for a source of strength and direction during the Napoleonic wars. 1 Carlyle put his faith in the Great Man: someone who was “unmistakably” sent to earth by God. Expanding on his beliefs, Carlyle delivered a series of lectures on the role heroes play in shaping history. These lectures were synthesized into a single work in 1841, titled On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. In his work, a deep respect for strength combined with the conviction of a God-given mission emerged. 2

Ultimately, there could be six archetypes: the hero as divinity (i.e. pagan myths), prophet (i.e. Muhammad), poet (i.e. William Shakespeare), priest (i.e. John Knox), man of letters (i.e. Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and king (i.e. Oliver Cromwell). 2 Carlyle argued that studying great men was profitable to our own heroic sides: examining heroes’ lives and greatness could help us uncover aspects of our character. 3

Carlyle went on to do much subsequent work regarding his heroes. Oliver Cromwell, English soldier and statesman who led parliamentary forces in the English Civil Wars, was Carlyle’s ideal man. 2 4 Frederick the Great - King of Prussia from 1740 to 1786 and a military campaigner - was another “hero as king” in Carlyle’s eyes. 5 Carlyle wrote Oliver Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches in 1845 and The History of Friedrich II of Prussia, Called Frederick the Great in 1857, detailing the men’s heroic accomplishments. 2

Due to Carlyle’s work, the Great Man Theory was most prominent in the 19th century, popularized in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition of 1911. This book is filled with detailed biographies about the great men of history. 6 Early research related to Carlyle’s work considered successful leaders, often aristocratic rulers who were granted their positions through birthright. 1 Of course, people of lower social status did not have the same opportunities to achieve leadership roles; this was blindly considered to be evidence that leadership ability is inherent.

Thomas Carlyle

Scottish historian and writer Thomas Carlyle is most known for his book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, in which he argued the key role in history played by the actions of great men. 2 Carlyle grew up in a family with strong Calvinist beliefs, and was expected to be a minister. Although he distanced from his faith while at the University of Edinburgh, he held onto some Calvinist values which shaped his later work, such as a desire to denounce evil. Carlyle’s work was highly influential - albeit controversial - during the Victorian era.

Consequences

The idea that leaders are born (and not made) is still a common and hotly debated idea. Those who believe in the original notion of innate superiority may be reluctant to take on positions of leadership if they believe they don’t have what it takes.

Most contemporary support for the Great Man Theory rests in its assertion that great leaders possess certain characteristics. 1 7 An extension of appreciation for the theory, rather than direct support of it, may be more fitting, as Carlyle’s work inspired the development of theoretical approaches of leadership, such as leadership styles and trait theories. 8 9

For example, the Big Five personality traits are frequently cited in contemporary research about leaders. 10 11 12 The five traits themselves are: (1) extraversion: the tendency to be outgoing, assertive, and active; (2) agreeableness: the tendency to be kind and trustworthy; (3) conscientiousness: determined by achievement and dependability; (4) neuroticism: the tendency to be anxious and fearful; and (5) openness to experiences: the tendency to be creative and perceptive. Researchers assess the five traits and determine which contribute to effective leadership, and which may be ineffective (i.e. neuroticism).

The Big Five personality traits and their bearing on leadership shares some common assumptions with Great Man Theory. The debate between nature and nurture when it comes to leadership still exists, but Carlyle’s work was certainly influential on leadership research.

Controversies

Due to the lack of empirical, scientific evidence for the Great Man Theory, 7 there remains a lot of criticism. When the theory was first popularized, one of the most prominent critics was biologist and sociologist Herbert Spencer. Spencer held that attributing historical successes to individual decisions was primitive and unscientific, and that the so-called “great men” were solely products of their social environment. 16 Before a “great man” could shape and build his society, the same society had to shape and build him.

There is also a sense of survivorship bias attached to the Great Man Theory: there are likely more people who possess “leadership qualities” than there are “great” historical leaders. If leadership was truly innate, then this should not be the case. Rather, research has shown that successful leadership is complex, influenced by many different factors. 17 Similarly, the theory excludes those who may not have necessarily been prominent leaders, but without whom history would not exist as we know it. 18 Carlyle’s concept thus raises philosophical concerns about the role of the individual versus the collective, and brings to light the psychological debate of nature versus nurture.

Aside from the tenets of the Great Man Theory, Carlyle has also been criticized for the way his work was written in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. 1 Of course, the use of “man” itself in his theory reflects a gender bias: a perception that history lies on the backs of dominant males, combined with conviction that leadership is inherently masculine. There is also a deep religiosity to Carlyle’s language in this text, especially in his warning that - for those who were not divinely appointed by God to become heroes - our jobs are to recognize and uplift “great men” into their positions of prominence. Only by obeying the rulings of these leaders can the “sick” world be healed, according to Carlyle. The Great Man thesis may ultimately say more about the patriarchal and individualistic assumptions of Western society in the 19th century than it informs about the progression of historical events. It demonstrates how historians and academics reflect the prejudices of their age in their work.

Leadership effectiveness

Due to the complexity of leadership, associated research tends to be limited in its breadth and clarity of core leader attributes. In particular, different studies tend to focus on varying, narrow categories of individual differences. 19 In an attempt to organize the existing literature on the effects of individual differences on leadership, recent frameworks have distinguished between trait-like and state-like differences. While research on trait-like differences would be dispositional and thus an extension of the Great Man Theory, research on state-like differences shifts its focus to buildable skills.

In order to assess the conceptually varied research on individual differences and leadership effectiveness, a group of psychology and management researchers set out to compare the roles of trait-like (i.e. personality and intelligence) and state-like differences (i.e. knowledge and skills) in leaders. 19 They conducted a meta-analysis of 1,846 articles across 25 individual differences proposed to be related to effective leadership.

Out of the 25 individual differences they assessed, 13 were found to be essential for effective leadership: seven trait-like individual differences (achievement motivation, charisma, creativity, dominance, energy, honesty and integrity, and self-confidence), and six state-like individual differences (decision making, interpersonal skills, management skills, oral communication, problem-solving skills, and written communication).

Ultimately, the researchers found that although both types of individual differences were important predictors of effective leadership, their relative impacts didn’t differ much. 19 Additionally, the amount of variance in leadership effectiveness that was explained by individual differences was typically influenced by the leader’s organizational level and organization type. For organizational level, variances in effectiveness were better explained by individual differences for those in lower levels of leadership, rather than higher levels. Organization type also mattered, such that a willingness to adjust to change was more strongly related to leadership effectiveness in government and military settings.

The findings from this 2011 meta-analysis suggest the existence of a dispositional component to effective leadership, supporting Carlyle’s Great Man Theory. However, buildable knowledge and skills are also important for effective leadership, which suggests that leadership models should expand to include these more coachable characteristics.

Great man or great myth? It really does seem like it is a mix of the two perspectives. Of course, “great man” refers to innate traits here, rather than support of the idea that only male heroes deserve credit or respect.

Related TDL Content

The Business Case for Women Leaders

“No great man lives in vain” - what about women? This article delves into the lack of women in leadership positions today and considers how attention to implicit gender biases can help us start to bridge the gap, and capitalize on women.

Are great leaders born or made? Take a look through some of The Decision Lab’s many thinker pieces: consider their stories, and decide for yourself!

Want to Innovate? Stop Hiring the Safest Option

Is there room for innovation within Carlyle’s six archetypes? This article offers leaders a fresh perspective on innovative hiring practices and may be something to consider for your next move in leadership.

• Spector, B. A. (2016). Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered. Leadership, 12 (2), 250-260.
• Cockshut, A. O. J. (2021, February 1). Thomas Carlyle. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Carlyle
• Carlyle, T. (1888). On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Frederick A. Stokes.
• Morrill, J. S. (2021, April 21). Oliver Cromwell. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Oliver-Cromwell
• Anderson, M. S. (2021, February 24). Frederick II. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederick-II-king-of-Prussia
• Boyles, D. (2016). Everything explained that is explainable: On the creation of the Encyclopædia Britannica’s celebrated eleventh edition, 1910-1911.
• Halaychik, C. S. (2016). Chapter 1 - Leadership theories. Lessons in Library Leadership. 
• De Vries, M. K., & Cheak-Baillargeon, A. (2015). Sociology of leadership in organizations. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). 
• Kumaran, M. (2012). Chapter 3 - Leadership styles. Leadership in Libraries. 
• Hassan, H., Asad, S., & Hoshino, Y. (2016). Determinants of leadership style in big five personality dimensions. Universal Journal of Management, 4 (4), 161-179.
• De Hoogh, A. H., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the big five‐factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; Perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 26 (7), 839-865.
• Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 (5), 751-765.
• Germain, M. L. (2012). Traits and skills theories as the nexus between leadership and expertise: Reality or fallacy? Performance Improvement, 51 (5), 32-39.
• Kumar, S., Adhish, V. S., & Deoki, N. (2014). Making sense of theories of leadership for capacity building. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine , 39 (2), 82-86.
• Youngjohn, R. M. (2000). Is leadership trait theory fact or fiction? A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness.
• Spencer, H. (1874). The Study of Sociology.
• Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26 (4), 66-85.
• Is There Still Value in ‘Great Man’ History? (2019, September 9). History Today. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/head-head/there-still-value-‘great-man’-history
• Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leadership effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84 (2), 347-381.

Case studies

From insight to impact: our success stories, is there a problem we can help with, about the authors.

Dan is a Co-Founder and Managing Director at The Decision Lab. He is a bestselling author of Intention - a book he wrote with Wiley on the mindful application of behavioral science in organizations. Dan has a background in organizational decision making, with a BComm in Decision & Information Systems from McGill University. He has worked on enterprise-level behavioral architecture at TD Securities and BMO Capital Markets, where he advised management on the implementation of systems processing billions of dollars per week. Driven by an appetite for the latest in technology, Dan created a course on business intelligence and lectured at McGill University, and has applied behavioral science to topics such as augmented and virtual reality.

Dr. Sekoul Krastev

Sekoul is a Co-Founder and Managing Director at The Decision Lab. He is a bestselling author of Intention - a book he wrote with Wiley on the mindful application of behavioral science in organizations. A decision scientist with a PhD in Decision Neuroscience from McGill University, Sekoul's work has been featured in peer-reviewed journals and has been presented at conferences around the world. Sekoul previously advised management on innovation and engagement strategy at The Boston Consulting Group as well as on online media strategy at Google. He has a deep interest in the applications of behavioral science to new technology and has published on these topics in places such as the Huffington Post and Strategy & Business.

We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy

Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations.

I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.

Heather McKee

BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST

GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT

OUR CLIENT SUCCESS

Annual revenue increase.

By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue .

Increase in Monthly Users

By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.

Reduction In Design Time

By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75% .

Reduction in Client Drop-Off

By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%

The COM-B Model for Behavior Change

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

Social Sciences

Gestalt Psychology

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?

Get new behavioral science insights in your inbox every month..

• Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership Words: 592
• Leadership: Forms and Theories Words: 2487
• Psychology of Leadership Theories Words: 3025
• Transformational & Transactional Leadership Theories Words: 4136
• Taxonomy of Leadership Theories Words: 1238
• Effective Leadership Skills in Practice Words: 2709
• Leadership Theories in the Healthcare Industry Words: 16486
• Contingency and Situational Theory in Leadership Words: 1042
• Contemporary Theories on Leadership Words: 607
• Organizational Leadership and Personal Qualities Words: 4011

Great Man Theory of Leadership

Leadership is an essential factor that determines the level of performance and success in organizations. Leaders influence relationships among employees and between their institutions and various stakeholders. The great man theory is one of the perspectives used to explain why some individuals have abilities to guide others, teams, or organizations toward the achievement of particular goals and objectives. An evaluation of the great man and its usefulness will help explain how it reflects the leadership components of the RN’s role and enhances inter-professional practice.

The great man theory proposes that leadership is an inborn quality. The perspective asserts that great leaders in society are not made; instead, they are born. The concept holds that such qualities as intelligence, charm, courage, judgment, persuasiveness, action orientation, commanding personality, aggressiveness, and charm cannot be learned or taught formally (Mouton, 2017). These abilities are transmitted through genes, and you either have or do not have them. The theory implies that leaders are God’s gift to humankind, and not everyone aspires to become leaders. The inborn characteristics of leadership are essential and sufficient for individuals to influence their followers and be successful (Mouton, 2017). Also, headship features and effectiveness do not depend on each other. Therefore, different factors, including followers’ needs, socioeconomic environment, and task demand, have an insignificant impact on one becoming a leader. Indeed, great leaders have charisma, and their factions view them with admiration, and their actions inspire others.

The theory fits with my management style and strengths in different ways. I am more inclined towards transformational leadership, whereby my main objective is to motivate others to own their roles and perform beyond expectations. As a group leader in school, I inspire and encourage members to find the best way of achieving our goals. As a nurse leader, I will be mobilizing employees into teams that can deliver exceptional services, enhancing each associate’s well-being, morale, and the group’s level of motivation through excellent relationships. My strengths include the ability to stir people’s emotions and inspire them, encourage and support them to achieve their objectives and a high level of integrity and fairness. These characteristics are inherent and not taught in any institution. For instance, being honest, reliable, and impartial when leading groups comes naturally, which are vital elements that define a great leader.

Leadership in nursing is important because it influences the quality of care services provided to the patients and the level of job satisfaction among the healthcare workers. The theory reflects leadership components of RNs’ roles, including the provision of support and direction, effective communication, motivating nurses, collaboration, advocating for patients, and collaborating with others as outlined in the NYS nurse practice act (New York State Education Department, 2018). RNs have to support patients and other health care professionals, inspire them, embrace teamwork, convey accurate and reliable information, supervise and lead by example, and promote patients’ well-being to guarantee optimal outcomes. Some of these skills, such as reliability, are inborn and cannot be transmitted through training.

Registered nurses are an essential component of the healthcare system. They are critical members of inter-professional teams and have a significant role in providing quality care to patients (Al-Dossary, 2017). The transformational leadership style will enhance my inter-professional practice by supporting and inspiring other workers effectively. Additionally, the technique will facilitate the pursuance of an excellent relationship with other care providers and promote their well-being to ensure safe and quality services.

AL-Dossary, R. (2017). Leadership in nursing. In A. Alvinius (Ed), Contemporary leadership challenges (pp. 251-264). InTechOpen.

Mouton, N. (2017). A literary perspective on the limits of leadership: Tolstoy’s critique of the great man theory. Leadership , 15 (1), 81-102. Web.

New York State Education Department. (2018). NYS nursing: Laws, rules & regulations . Article 139. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, August 30). Great Man Theory of Leadership. https://studycorgi.com/great-man-theory-of-leadership/

"Great Man Theory of Leadership." StudyCorgi , 30 Aug. 2022, studycorgi.com/great-man-theory-of-leadership/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Great Man Theory of Leadership'. 30 August.

1. StudyCorgi . "Great Man Theory of Leadership." August 30, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/great-man-theory-of-leadership/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Great Man Theory of Leadership." August 30, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/great-man-theory-of-leadership/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Great Man Theory of Leadership." August 30, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/great-man-theory-of-leadership/.

This paper, “Great Man Theory of Leadership”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: September 17, 2024 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The Great Man Theory of History

Jan 17, 2020 | Articles

(This essay was originally written as a chapter in my book, Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters , and is an outtake from that book.)

Do specific geniuses or “great men” drive forward the events of history?   Is profound impact on social history the criterion of such great men or heroes?

This idea, known as “the great man theory of history,” was extensively argued during the 19th century, when Western support  for heroism was still pronounced.

Despite a fascinating philosophic debate among serious thinkers, the theory is fatally flawed.

The Great Man Theory

The essence of the hypothesis is that certain great men or heroes, by virtue of their genius, charisma, and/or military-political acumen, are the primary causal agents of historic events. Society does not shape great individuals; rather, great individuals shape society.

Napoleon—who, in accordance with this speculation, can be interpreted as seizing control of the French Revolution and imposing it on sundry European monarchs—is often advanced as an exemplar.

Thomas Carlyle, in his book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, And The Heroic In History, analyzes writers, priests, and prophets as authentic examples of heroes, but definitively proclaims rightful rulers the greatest of the great. “The Commander over Men; he to whose wills our wills are to be subordinated, and loyally surrender themselves, and find their welfare in doing so, may be reckoned the most important of Great Men.” [i]

It is Carlyle’s fervent exhortation that we: “Find in any country the Ablest Man that exists there; raise him to the supreme place, and loyally reverence him….The Ablest Man; he means also the truest-hearted, justest, the Noblest Man: what he tells us to do must be precisely the wisest, fittest, that we could anywhere, anyhow learn;–the thing which it will in all ways behoove US, with right loyal thankfulness and nothing doubting, to do.” [ii]

Drawn from history, Carlyle’s principal examples of proper commanders over men are Cromwell and Napoleon who, presumably, he believes, will provide us guidance “the wisest, fittest, that we could anywhere, anyhow learn.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, although aphoristic and metaphoric in style—and hardly systematic—is a thinker vastly more profound; who mocks the “insipid muddleheaded Carlyle,” and who provides trenchant if brutal argumentation in support of his vision.

Ironically, Nietzsche, despite his devout atheism, holds a quasi-religious metaphysics, in which “will”—a feature of spirit or mind or consciousness—is presented as the impelling drive of reality itself.  He repudiates the mechanistic, “billiard ball” vision of the universe, which posits, in effect, a world composed of material entities moving, totally and unconditionally, in accord with the laws of physics; and does so, because such a view wrongly models human life and society, actuated as they are by passion and desire.

Nietzsche, rejecting dualism, and seeking a unified world view, resists a projection of inanimate matter’s form of causation onto man—and rather, projects man’s form of causation onto inanimate matter: “Let us assume that nothing is ‘given’ as real except our world of desires and passions….Would we not be allowed to experiment with the question whether these ‘givens’ are not sufficient for understanding the so-called mechanistic (or material) world?…To understand the material world as a pre-form of life?” [iii]

“Will-causality” is the sole form of causality he recognizes.  What are the will(s) composing reality willing? In some primordial sense, a drive to power, about which he works out no detailed theory applied to the universe, but does so applied to life. He writes:  “Life itself is essential assimilation, injury, violation of the foreign and the weaker, suppression, hardness, the forcing of one’s own forms upon something else, ingestion and—at least in its milder form—exploitation.” [iv]

For human beings, as for all organisms, the ultimate good is mastery, domination, subjugation.

(It is not to be overlooked that, for Nietzsche, the paradigm examples of the superior person or Overman were, most likely, such creative artists as Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Goethe; who harness the passion, the turbulence, the raw, burgeoning power of their frenzied souls, and, having gained self-mastery, project order onto the world’s intractable materials, bringing forth in structured, stylized beauty, a momentous work of art. “One must still have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star.” [v] )

Nevertheless, the most frequent examples of the exuberantly hard, indomitably self-assertive, world-bursting individuals he extols are generals, politicians, ruthless leaders of men—Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon. These individuals topple city-states, overturn republics, crush freedom, not as wantonly destructive nihilism but so they may establish empire.

“Most of the overmen whom Nietzsche mentioned by name were politicians and generals whose creativity often expressed itself in the conquest of alien peoples or the subjugation of their fellow citizens.” [vi]

Such giants of history were “beyond good and evil” precisely because, in overturning the old political order among men, and imposing a new, they flouted, violated, shattered conventional moral codes and thrust upon society rules, guidelines, commandments inherently  their own.

“The History of the world is but the Biography of great men,” stated Carlyle in perfect, pithy expression of this view. [vii]

Nineteenth Century Criticisms of the Theory

Today, it is generally held that the great man theory was logically devastated by the withering critique of Herbert Spencer. Spencer, arguing for the causal role of society in shaping an individual, famously observed: “You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…Before he can re-make his society, his society must make him.” [viii]

William James, from a distinctively biological standpoint, critiqued Spencer’s critique. James pointed out, in terms of causation, a reciprocal relationship between geniuses (or great men) and society; comparing these to the mutual impact on each other of organism and physical environment, as elucidated in Darwinian theory.

“The causes of production of great men lie in a sphere wholly inaccessible to the social philosopher. He must simply accept geniuses as data, just as Darwin accepts his spontaneous variations…these data being given, how does the environment affect them, and how do they affect the environment? …the relation of the visible environment to the great man is in the main exactly what it is to the ‘variation’ in the Darwinian philosophy. It chiefly adopts or rejects, preserves or destroys, in short selects him. And whenever it adopts and preserves the great man, it becomes modified by his influence in an entirely original and peculiar way.” [ix]

For James, biological—not social—factors produce a great man: “Physiological forces, with which the social, political, geographical…conditions have just as much…to do as the condition of the crater of Vesuvius…with the flickering of this gas by which I write, are what make him.” [x]

Presumably, for James, expressed in contemporary terms, a genius arises due predominantly (perhaps exclusively) to genetic causation—either matches his environment or not—and by it is either accepted or rejected, embraced or crushed. When an individual’s genius matches his society, it welcomes him, and he becomes, for it, a driving catalyst of change. “The mutations of societies, then, from generation to generation, are in the main due directly or indirectly to the acts or the examples of individuals whose genius was so adapted to the receptivities of the moment…” [xi]

Or, as James puts it, writing in the late 19 th century: “Not every ‘man’ fits every ‘hour’…A given genius may come either too early or too late. Peter the Hermit [an 11 th century priest who helped incite the First Crusade] would now be sent to a lunatic asylum…Cromwell and Napoleon need their revolutions, Grant his civil war…” [xii]

There are a constellation of errors permeating this debate, some committed by this thinker, others by that.

These are: 1. Impact on historic events is not a primary criterion of heroism. 2. Mistakes regarding the complex relationship between an individual and society. 3. Failure to apprehend a fundamental aspect of a great individual’s greatness. 4. The critical error that everyman should obey the commands of heroes, who properly should hold political and legal dominion.

Let’s examine these one at a time.

Critiquing the Great Man Theory

One: Impact on social history: Regarding heroism, an individual’s impact on history is the wrong question to ask. Vivid counter-examples form the start of a counter argument; principles extracted from them, its culmination.

Attila and earlier Hun chieftains had an incalculable impact on social history. Their invasions of Eastern and Central Europe swept before them Germanic tribes, who, fleeing, burst the boundaries of the Roman Empire; catalyzing a series of migrations and battles that, decades later, contributed to the collapse of civilization and triumph of barbarism. Attila ravaged extensive portions of northern Italy and even threatened Rome itself.

Attila and prior Hun leaders were a powerful force in early medieval European history. Is this sufficient to make them heroes? No. Blood-drenched barbarians who dramatically augment the destruction of civilization are, no doubt, mighty villains—but, by virtue of this alone, are excluded from the ranks of heroes.

Epistemologically, the concept “hero” refers to the identification that, in real life, some rare individuals achieve goals that substantially advance human life; that support construction and life, not destruction and death. If a powerful Roman emperor had arisen—a latter-day Augustus—had selected skilled commanders, rallied his troops, defeated the invaders, saved Rome, restored and upheld some degree of intellectual freedom, thereby promoting a revival of civilization, and had continued to protect it against barbarians—this would be a hero.

A different example on the same theme: If impact on history is a prime criterion of heroism, then few can lay better claim to the title than Hitler. But, in truth, one of history’s most egregious mass murderers has even less claim to the title of “hero” than does Attila.

There is a fundamental flaw in the great man theory of history: It asks the wrong question.

The proper criterion of heroism is not impact on society—but benefit to human life. The individual who discovers new knowledge—or applies it to such life-promoting fields as music, agriculture, medicine, electrical engineering, or numerous others—the person who creates material or intellectual wealth—or who effectively protects the creators—the men and women responsible for originating civilization, for raising mankind out of the caves and the jungles, for immensely increasing living standards, life expectancies, leisure time, and for creating art, entertainment, and consequent immeasurable  enhancement of men’s ability to enjoy their earthly time—these are mankind’s heroes.

Heroes, by this measure, do greatly impact social history—but such influence is not the fundamental criterion of heroism. If we employ the Carlyle-Nietzsche definition of “great men,” then, in truth, all (epic)heroes are great men—but not all great men are heroes. Unfortunately, heroes are not as widespread a phenomenon as “great men;”  worse, “hero worship” has been too often directed at “great men” unworthy of it.

Two: The relationship between the great individual and society :  Looked at from one perspective—viewing society as an immense but nonetheless single entity, composed of an incalculable number of components—a reciprocal influence upon each other of great man and society is undeniably true.

Napoleon certainly shook European monarchies to their foundations.

But the causal factors animating such momentous events stretched back through centuries; including, most obviously, the French Revolution; but also the long-unchallenged power of the ancien regime —the thoughts, values, and actions of various Bourbon monarchs, their families, foes, and advisors—the teachings and actions of the Catholic Church, its popes, cardinals, and theologians; the writings of various philosophes, supporting the freedom of man’s mind, opposing the ancient regime; the influence, especially on Voltaire, of Britain’s gradual movement away from absolute monarchy in the direction of increased individual liberties; the prevalence across the Continent of oppressive hereditary monarchies, and the opposition of many to the ideals and goals of the Revolution; and so on, in incessant litany of causes and conditioning persons and events, that could not be exhaustively recounted in a dozen lifetimes by a regiment of Will Durants.

Napoleon was acted upon, by society, in ways too numerous to catalogue.

But viewing society as a single super-organism that thinks and acts and influences an individual is worse than a fiction of lazy minds unwilling to examine its multitude of constituent parts. It is the fallacy of reification writ large. “Reification…is the hypostatizing [thing-making] of entities, that is, the making of abstractions into substances.” [xiii]

That, in some sense, society exists, is not to be doubted. But in what sense? Surely, “American society” does not exist in the sense that, for example, Clint Eastwood—American citizen—exists. One could meet face-to-face with Eastwood, converse, dine, and tipple with him—might visually observe, on the silver screen, his impressively manly squint—applaud (or not) as he garners “Best Director” awards—and so on. Can one engage in such activities vis-à-vis “American society?” One cannot.

American society, or any other, is an amalgam of such an immense quantity of individuals—their thoughts, values, emotions, actions, and swirling interactions—as to be, in a literal sense, incalculable. One could not encounter all such social components, never mind remember, during the latter stage of encountering, those antecedently encountered; much less keep track—in the time elapsed during these subsequent encounters—of the further doings of those initially encountered.

The concept “society” is a mental construct subsuming an immeasurable quantity of data, much, although not all of it, observational.  To state the point simply: Society is a collection of individuals who act upon each other.

Whose actions impinge most heavily on others?

Napoleon exerted more influence—for better or worse—on far more individuals than the vast majority of other individuals exerted on him. Although it is true, in some sense, to say that “society” significantly influenced (but not “made” or “molded”) Napoleon, the conventional understanding of this claim is—including by many philosophers—at best, woozy.

The sense in which it is true is that many members of human society—individuals—exerted some influence on Napoleon, and that some members exerted much; this latter includes more than the usual suspects of parents, family, peers, teachers, and so on; but also some of history’s other “great men,”  including a wide array of diverse artists, philosophers, scientists, and statesmen who helped create both the relatively-advanced Western society in which Napoleon was educated and the opportunities it afforded.

James succinctly expresses the point: “…the important thing…is that what makes a certain genius now incompatible with his surroundings is usually…that some previous genius of a different strain has warped the community away from the sphere of his possible effectiveness. After Voltaire, no Peter the Hermit…” [xiv]

Regarding the exertion of influence, not all human beings are created equal.  A few exert substantially—in some cases vastly—more on other individuals than do other individuals on them (or than these other individuals do on the still other individuals composing the rest of society). A critically important question is: Is such influence for good or ill—or is it mixed? To make such a judgment, of course, requires a standard.

That Napoleon exerted enormous impact on European society is clear. Further, numerous of his policies effectively supported human life. He ended feudalism, abolished serfdom, and annulled the Inquisition. He advanced religious freedom in Europe, even for the long-oppressed Jews. Across the continent, he so weakened the ancient regime that it would not long survive his own demise.

But the blood, the guts, the enormous cost in human life, in service of his dreams of conquest and power, cannot be sanctioned. Although certainly not a scourge of civilization a la Attila, much less a monster, the countless youthful lives snuffed out, in endless procession of gory battles, to fulfill his imperial designs renders unconscionable an overwhelming preponderance of his career.

It is definitely tragic, and possibly criminal that we, the human race, have so often glorified conquerors. Stendhal, as but one example, praised Napoleon as “the greatest man to appear in the world since Caesar.” [xv] Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, despite some noble qualities and beneficent policies, shed such an ocean of innocent blood as to dwarf their life-giving achievements. It is the creators and their protectors, not power-seekers and warmongers that deserve our respect and emulation. Nietzsche, in his best moments, understood this; unfortunately, his best moments were rare.

Three: The overlooked cause of a great man’s greatness: James, in effect, argues that geniuses or great men are born, not made. Presumably, the biological causes of a hero’s gifts are operative whether his society is ready or not for them; whether, to these gifts, it offers nurture or opposition; whether, for them, it provides outlet or stone wall.

In response to his chief opponent, he wrote: “Can it be that Mr. Spencer holds the convergence of sociological pressures to have so impinged on Stratford-upon-Avon about the 26 th of April, 1564, that a W. Shakespeare, with all his mental peculiarities, had to be born there, –as the pressure of water outside a certain boat will cause a stream of a certain form to ooze into a particular leak?  And does he mean to say that if the aforesaid W. Shakespeare had died of cholera infantum, another mother at Stratford-upon-Avon would needs have engendered a duplicate copy of him, to restore the sociologic equilibrium,–just as the same stream of water will reappear, no matter how often you pass a sponge over the leak, so long as the outside level remains unchanged?” [xvi]

Presumably, Spencer meant no such thing. What he most likely meant was a more conventional claim that, once born, a future genius receives from society nurturing, education, religious training, stable political environment, friendship, love, human intimacy, and much more, all of which contribute to the eventual great man; or, in Spencer’s overstated terms, are what “make him.”

One assumes Spencer does not mean what James ascribes to him: that society—its cultural evolution, educational system, government, and so forth —necessitates, at precisely that moment, the birth of a man with the vigorous brain activity of a Shakespeare; but merely, that once such an individual is born, society trains that brain to cognize, to value, to feel, in specific forms.  James is here guilty of a straw man fallacy.

Aside from the reification already described—and the realization that the education, cultural accomplishments, and so forth, provided the germinating genius proceed from other individuals and institutions founded, run, and supported by individuals—both disputants overlook a cardinal principle necessary to understand the gestation of any person’s thinking and values, including those of a genius: volition. (This is an oversight especially puzzling in the case of James, strong advocate of free will that he is.)

Do Spencer and James differ over no more than variants of determinism, with the former advocating a social—and the latter a biological—version? If so, this writer disagrees.

That a Shakespeare is born with a robust brain (and nervous system) generating rich, diverse, quick, multiple neural firings—or however 21 st century neuro-biology understands such functions—seems clear. Who doubts that the brain of a genius is pre-eminently active?

In a form analogous to how the coordinated muscle structure of an Olympic champion facilitates athletic accomplishments, just so the vigorous brain functioning of a Shakespeare is a necessary condition of  intellectual ones.  A certain type of brain and the neural activity it actuates are, presumably, foundations of the “one percent inspiration” of genius properly invoked by Edison.

Further, if an individual of prodigious cerebral endowment, such as a Shakespeare, is born to a primitive nomadic tribe, which has yet to formulate written language, the education, values, and training afforded by such a society provide scant opportunity for the potential Bard to actualize his surpassing literary gifts. (Although, he might be exactly the individual, in that society, who pioneers written language; the earlier absence of which itself provides opportunity). That the history, culture, education, political system, and so forth, of a given society emphatically affects the germination of a great individual’s intellect and values—on what basis can such a proposition be doubted?

Nevertheless, an individual is not the crafted outcome of what other individuals molded him to be; as many parents have ruefully discovered. He/she is not the sum total of the thoughts, appraisals, beliefs, emotions, and actions of the myriad individuals who have, to greater or lesser degree, impacted him. He is influenced; he is not molded.

If individuals are molded, who or what molded the original molders? (Or, in Spencer’s overstated terms, if society “make[s]” an individual, who makes the makers?) Somewhere in time, the process of molding began; otherwise, no process. Who initiated it? And what were the culture’s determining influence(s) on him (or them)? Or are we to assume that the human race’s progenitors made fundamental choices of which their descendants are incapable? If so, what principle explains the volition possessed by some members of humanity, as distinct and apart from the rest?

In short, the thesis that some individuals “make” an individual, is hopelessly entangled in an infinite regress of causes. For, the individuals that made Napoleon were themselves “made” by antecedent individuals, who, of course, were “made” by individuals prior to them, and so forth, ad infinitum. Positing such an infinite regress of causation is a more egregious logical error even than reification.

Further, does the super-charged brain activity of a Shakespeare necessitate its direction into literature? Was it neither neurologically nor socially possible for a man of such intellectual gifts to spark interest in mathematics or medicine or art? Indeed, was it necessary that he pursue an intellectual career at all? Many a time, honest observers have witnessed the sad spectacle of supremely gifted individuals squandering immense intellectual inheritance, as do some of their unfortunate counterparts regarding material ones.

As a striking example, Shakespeare’s brilliant contemporary, poet/dramatist, Christopher Marlowe, was, aged twenty-nine, stabbed to death under mysterious circumstances that might never be entirely understood.

Nevertheless, tragically, for the claim that Marlowe was as much a genius of low-living as he was of theater arts, there is abundant supporting evidence. An anonymous 16 th century contemporary wrote of him: “Pity it is that wit so ill should dwell, Wit lent from Heaven, but vices sent from hell.”

That a man possesses active brain and brilliant acumen provides no assurance that he values either—that he will doggedly pursue serious intellectual interests, literary or otherwise—or, so  doing, that he will not simultaneously court dissipation or early demise in riotous hedonism, gratuitous violence, or one or another of self-destruction’s myriad seductive forms.

Marlowe manifested a short but brilliant career. How many others, with equally potent brains and similarly powerful vices, manifested careers only short—or non-existent? The graveyards, one sadly suspects, are filled with skeletons of potential geniuses that, for one or another reason, were never heard from.

The truth is that Shakespeare was born with a vibrantly active brain that enabled prodigious intellectual achievement—that he appeared in a 16 th century English culture that prized theater and literature, providing thereby encouragement and opportunity—and that he chose an intellectual career and chose one distinctively in the field of literature.   

Choice, as a real aspect of human life, is known via direct introspective awareness–and the flaws of determinism, in any of its forms, are intellectually fatal.   (See Appendix B: “A Challenge to Determinism.”)

Four: Heroes possess no moral authority to command obedience:  Why do purveyors of the Great Man theory claim that a hero should rightfully possess unlimited political power?

Is it because he/she embodies a will to dominance that forms the core of metaphysical reality, is thereby incarnation of it, and entitled—as, in effect, reality’s certified deputy—to shunt, bestride, or trample lesser men? Or is it because the great individual possesses wisdom and judgment lacking in mere mortals, whose otherwise lost souls call out desperately for his guidance?

Is his/her rule justified by brute power—as, according to the most radical Greek Sophists—force was the final arbiter of right and wrong? [xvii] Or is it sanctioned by paternalism, similar to that of Plato’s vision of a Socrates-like Philosopher King? Is it the great person’s rightful destiny to overthrow societies, and, living “beyond” the conventional moral codes they embody, crush sniveling weaklings strewn athwart his path? Or, under the burden of noblesse oblige, must his/her reign embody not merely a material generosity to those less prosperous but, as well, a spiritual guidance to those less wise?

Clearly, for Nietzsche, the propositions contained in the former questions constitute his reasons; nor is it a matter of guesswork that, for Carlyle, those in the latter.

In his 1849 essay, “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question,” Carlyle is brutally clear regarding the reasons of paternalism’s rectitude. It is here that Carlyle first applied his now-famous epithet “the dismal science” to economics. What is “dismal” regarding economics? The economists’ commitment to individuals making unfettered choices in free markets, unguided by their intellectual and/or moral superiors.

To be blunt, Carlyle regarded certain human beings—blacks, European serfs, Irishmen, low-born workers—as unqualified for self-governing. The principles of individualism, individual rights, and political-economic liberty cut asunder such persons from a hierarchical society that bestowed upon them a sustaining  guidance from their superiors.  For this reason, Carlyle fervently supported race-based slavery—and excoriated the economists because they did not. [xviii]   In the end, in politics, Carlyle embodies a bastardized version of Platonism.

In truth, however, to the extent that authoritarian rulers are upheld as heroes, and hero worship is held to be unreserved reverence for and unquestioning obedience to them, they are dangerous figures; properly, human beings should be fearful of such beliefs.  In the “Prologue” to her book, Heroes, Saviors, Traitors, and Supermen: A History of Hero Worship, Lucy Hughes Hallett warns against human willingness to “hand over their political rights to a glorious superman.” [xix]    Regarding this aspect of the complex issue, she is quite right.

Why? The answer can be succinctly stated: Rational beings possess the wherewithal, and must accept the responsibility, to govern their own lives. To surrender this right is not merely to threaten political liberty, and enshrine statism, but to undermine the role of the mind in each individual’s life. Did nature endow us with a mind to surrender it to a fatherly despot? When we are children, we need the loving supervision of our parents. Does it follow that, as adults, we yet require such supervision from the state?

Epistemologically, psychologically, morally—despite our years, experience, and wisdom attained—do we perennially remain akin to children? Do the vast majority of persons—healthy, able-bodied, possessing a human brain—require Political Big Daddy or Super Nanny to guide them? “An exaggerated veneration for an exceptional individual poses an insidious temptation. It allows worshippers to abnegate responsibility, looking to great men for salvation or for fulfillment which they more properly should be working to accomplish for themselves.” [xx]

A healthy adult living in a free society can and will deploy his/her intelligence to choose the education he receives, the field of study in which he specializes, the career he pursues, the locale of his residence, and so forth regarding the myriad values of human life.

Could the state, for example,  know for Jenny Smith—better than she could know—what is best for her regarding a single one of these values, much less the totality? By what means? Jenny Smith, let us say, chooses to study biology—but the state deems architecture a field for her better suited. What evidence could the state adduce to support its claim? Since Carlyle (and many others) assumes paternalism, the kinship of a benevolent state to a loving parent, the sought-after outcome must include the well-being of the individual citizen.

By what means could the state know that architecture, rather than biology, will best ensure Ms. Smith’s fulfillment? Will it administer a battery of sophisticated aptitude tests? Will it hire expert psychologists to interview and examine her? Will it coerce her—as a trial run—to spend x amount of time studying architecture?

And what if, after all of the state’s noblest efforts, Ms. Smith persists in obdurate commitment to biology? Will the state coerce her into its preferred field? If so, is it reasonable to expect that, under conditions of forced labor, Ms. Jenny Smith will achieve career fulfillment?

Further, once this aspect of Ms. Smith’s drama is resolved, the state is yet faced with guiding her life regarding other significant human values. Multiply this dilemma by the fifty million citizens (or greater) populating a given society, and the insuperable epistemological difficulties faced by a paternalistic state become manifest.

Or, if it is assumed that the state need concern itself only with the best interest of society as a whole—rather than the fulfillment of individual citizens—how is this achieved? Under individual rights and freedom, individuals pursue their own values. But the impelling premise of paternalism is that the wise political rulers know what is best for each citizen—more ably than he/she can know for himself/herself.

If the state “guides,” that is, can coerce a person toward the end it—but not he/she—cherishes, how many members of society will be fulfilled? How many will work conscientiously, as opposed to resentfully and half-heartedly? How many will commit suicide? How is the best interest of society—a composite of millions of individuals—served by the enforced frustration of countless of those individuals?

Thus far, we have discussed only education and career. Throw in the values of friendship, romantic love, marriage, and children, and the prescription for state-dominated misery becomes irresistible.

Related: Nietzsche, in his best moments and moods, recognizes that the greatest individuals or most perfected heroes are not conquerors or kings, but creative artists and intellectual geniuses. About this, he is correct. What of such creative minds under paternalism? Are we to believe the wise rulers those most capable of identifying and nurturing such nascent talent? And what ensues if the germinating genius seeks independence from the state, as do teen-agers from parents, and dares disagree with its edicts and policies?

What occurs if he/she persists in such disagreement into adulthood, using his creative gifts to convey his message to the public? Stripped of the right to govern his/her life by application of his own intelligence, and obligated to—in all matters—accept the state’s superior wisdom, is he inevitably faced with the brutal alternative: Kowtow or die? How thick is the irony when Plato’s politics, embodied, results in the execution of a future Socrates?

Politically, this form of hero worship necessitates state worship. Ironically, in its milder form, it makes life exceedingly difficult for the great creative minds that constitute mankind’s grandest heroes; in its most virulent form, it crushes them.

The great man theory of heroism, as debated in the 19th century, is fatally flawed. Impact on society or on history is not a proper criterion of heroism; nor are many of the individuals hero-worshipped worthy of it. Heroes are “made” by neither genetic inheritance nor social conditioning nor a combination of the two; although these are impactful factors, they do not cover the waterfront; additionally, heroes choose to perform the life-enhancing feats they do, often under great duress and against social opposition; such courageous choices are part of what make them heroes. Heroes, as earlier discussed, are to be worshiped and emulated; not blindly obeyed.

Get your copy of Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters today!

[i] Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, And The Heroic In History (Middlesex, England: Echo Library, 2007), p. 123.

[ii] Ibid.,  p. 123.

[iii] Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, tr. M. Cowan (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1955), pp. 42-43.

[iv] Ibid. , p. 201.

[v] Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufman (New York: Viking, 1954), p. 129.

[vi] W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, vol. 4, “Kant and the Nineteenth Century” (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1975), p. 257.

[vii] Carlyle, op. cit., p. 21.

[viii] Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1896), p. 34.

[ix] William James, “Great Men and their Environment” in The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1956), pp. 225-26.

[x] Ibid., pp. 234-35.

[xi] Ibid., p. 227.

[xii] Ibid., p. 230.

[xiii] Ward Fearnside and William Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 43.

[xiv] James, op. cit., p. 230.

[xv] Quoted in Will and Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 11, “The Age of Napoleon” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975), p. 773.

[xvi] Ibid., p. 235.

[xvii] W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, Volume One, “The Classical Mind” (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969), pp. 68-71.

[xviii] Carlyle, “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question,” www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/carlyle/occasion.htm . Retrieved July 16, 2016. David Levy, How The Dismal Science Got Its Name (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), pp. xiii-xv, 3-28, 41-57, 147, 158-197, and passim. Levy, “150 years and Still Dismal!”  www.fee.org/articles/150-years-and-still-dismal/. Retrieved July 16, 2016.

[xix] Lucy Hughes-Hallett, Heroes, Saviors, Traitors, and Supermen: A History of Hero Worship (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2004), p. 14.

[xx] Ibid., p. 5

Recent Posts

• Full Interview With Andrew Bernstein On Decline Of US Education
• Why Western Civilization is Worth Defending with Professor Andrew Bernstein
• The Case Against Slavery Reparations
• Joseph Conrad’s Exquisitely Brutal Novella, “Heart of Darkness”
• “Race Blind” Individualism is the Solution to Antisemitism
• Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam

Great Man, Trait, and Other Leadership Theories Case Study

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

There is no use denying the fact that the world is ruled by people who are able to make other people follow them. There is a great number of different ways to become a ruler, however, if a person is able to do it without force, just using his/her personal qualities, it means that he/she is a good leader and is able to make people believe him/her and follow any ideas which are suggested by him/her. That is why, the issue of leadership obtains great importance. It is vital to understand what qualities are peculiar to a good leader and what makes him/her so convincing and powerful. There is a great number of different approaches to leadership analysis of which can help to understand the nature of leadership better.

One of the first theories connected with leadership is called Great Man theory . It states that some people are born to be leaders and, moreover, they appear in times when they are needed most of all. That is why, they are able to develop qualities which make people follow them and listen to their words. (Northouse 2013). However, nowadays this theory is considered to be outdated as it is believed that leadership qualities can be developed. Trait theory appeared later and, that is why, it states that people are “either born or are made with certain qualities that will make them excel in leadership roles” ( Leadership theories n.d., para.3).

That is why, some qualities are important for a good leader. Additionally, there is a Behavioural theory which states that actions of a leader are the most important aspect which makes people follow a person. Moreover, Instrumental theory suggests that leadership depends on the attention given to details and tasks (Antonakis & House 2014), while the theory of Expressive leadership determines a leader as a person who gives more attention to people. With this in mind, it is possible to analyse the issue of leadership taking into account great number of different theories.

Nevertheless, it should be said that according to these theories different qualities make a person a good leader. Instrumental leaders should be organised and, moreover, be able to make people work efficiently by outlining certain tasks and showing what steps should be done in order to accomplish these tasks, while expressive leaders have such personal qualities as enthusiasm. charisma and good rhetoric ( Transactional Leadership n.d). That is why, instrumental leaders can sometimes be similar to efficient managers ( Leadership vs. Management n.d).

It is obvious, that different leaders have different impact on people. It depends on the set of qualities which these leaders possess and the way in which they prefer to manage people. If a leader encourages his/her followers with the help of emotional support or motivation, people will feel relief and confidence, while other leaders can use another methods such as pressure or some other ways of stimulating which will increase efficiency though will not stabilise emotional state of a person.

Having analysed these different approaches, it is possible to make certain conclusion. It should be said that knowledge obtained from this analysis can be used n practice. It is possible for a person to analyse his/her own qualities and, taking into account different theories of leadership and different kinds of leaders, try to develop some certain traits of his/her character to be able to create some special approach which can be used in business in order to increase incomes of some company by engaging people..

Reference List

Antonakis, J & House, R 2014, ‘Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory’, The Leadership Quarterly , vol. 25, pp. 746-771.

Leadership theories n.d. Web.

Leadership vs. Management n.d. Web.

Northouse, P 2013, Leadership: theory and practice , SAGE publications, Thousand Oaks.

Transactional Leadership n.d. Web.

• Leadership and Team Effectiveness
• Leadership in Saudi Arabian Family Firms
• Managing People: The Case of Virgin Atlantic
• Hoffmann’s “Beethoven’s Instrumental Music”
• The Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility
• China's Cultural Differences and Leadership
• Leadership Expectations in China's Workplace
• Transformational Leaders Influence on Performance
• Bill Campbell's Input to Intuit Company's Culture
• Leadership for Creativity and Innovation
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, August 13). Great Man, Trait, and Other Leadership Theories. https://ivypanda.com/essays/great-man-trait-and-other-leadership-theories/

"Great Man, Trait, and Other Leadership Theories." IvyPanda , 13 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/great-man-trait-and-other-leadership-theories/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Great Man, Trait, and Other Leadership Theories'. 13 August.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Great Man, Trait, and Other Leadership Theories." August 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/great-man-trait-and-other-leadership-theories/.

1. IvyPanda . "Great Man, Trait, and Other Leadership Theories." August 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/great-man-trait-and-other-leadership-theories/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Great Man, Trait, and Other Leadership Theories." August 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/great-man-trait-and-other-leadership-theories/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Essay on A Great Man

Students are often asked to write an essay on A Great Man in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on A Great Man

Introduction.

A great man is someone who makes significant contributions to society. They inspire others with their actions, ideas, and achievements.

Qualities of a Great Man

A great man possesses qualities like honesty, courage, and humility. They show respect to all, irrespective of their status.

Impact on Society

Great men leave a lasting impact on society. They set examples for others to follow, shaping the world in a positive way.

In conclusion, a great man is not just about personal success, but also about making a difference in the lives of others.

250 Words Essay on A Great Man

The essence of greatness, characteristics of a great man.

A great man is one who possesses integrity. He stands by his principles, even in the face of adversity, demonstrating courage and resilience. He is self-aware, understanding his strengths and weaknesses, and strives for self-improvement.

A great man influences society positively. He inspires others through his actions and words, fostering growth and progress. He doesn’t shy away from taking responsibility and often spearheads change, proving instrumental in shaping societal norms and values.

Humility: A Key Trait

Humility is a distinguishing trait of a great man. Despite his accomplishments, he remains grounded, acknowledging the contributions of others to his success. He treats everyone with respect, regardless of their social standing, embodying empathy and compassion.

Endurance and Perseverance

Endurance and perseverance are hallmarks of a great man. He confronts challenges head-on, turning obstacles into opportunities for growth. His unwavering commitment to his goals, coupled with his tenacity, sets him apart.

In conclusion, a great man is defined not by his status or achievements, but by his character, influence, humility, and perseverance. He is a beacon of inspiration, driving societal progress and embodying the virtues that make humanity admirable.

500 Words Essay on A Great Man

Introduction: the concept of greatness, the power of character.

The character of a great man is often defined by his integrity, courage, and resilience. These are not qualities that one acquires overnight; they are honed through a lifetime of experiences, trials, and tribulations. A great man stands by his principles, even when faced with adversity. He is not afraid to stand alone if it means upholding his values.

The Role of Empathy

Empathy is another critical attribute of a great man. The ability to understand and share the feelings of others allows a great man to connect with people on a deeper level. This emotional intelligence enables him to influence and inspire others, fostering a sense of unity and mutual respect.

The Importance of Humility

The impact of a great man on society is profound. Through his actions and words, he sets an example for others to follow. He contributes to societal progress, not just through his professional achievements, but also through his personal conduct. He champions causes that promote equality, justice, and human rights, and uses his influence to bring about positive change.

The Legacy of a Great Man

The legacy of a great man is enduring. Long after he is gone, his ideals, principles, and contributions continue to inspire and guide future generations. His life serves as a testament to the power of character, empathy, and humility, proving that greatness is not just about achieving success, but also about making a positive difference in the world.

Conclusion: Redefining Greatness

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Books of Autobiography
• Books of Biography
• Books of Composition
• Books of Essay
• Books of Linguistics
• Books of Literary Criticism
• Books of Poetry
• Books of Short Story
• Books of Science & Tech
• Books of Theory
• Books of History
• Books for Children
• Books Variety
• Linguistics
• Thoughtpansion
• Short Story
• Novel Criticism
• Drama Criticism
• Essay Criticism
• S Story Criticism
• Poetry Criticism
• Literary Article
• Literary Theory
• Agriculture
• Communication

Mahatma Gandhi Essay | Life of a Great Man

Mahatma Gandhi Essay

Mahatma Gandhi Essay  

Life of a Great Man

A man is called great when he contributes something to the cause of human peace, unity, happiness, brotherhood or fellow-feeling. There is no dearth of great men who have contributed to the growth and prosperity of human civilization. But among them, I have chosen Mahatma Gandhi as my ideal great man.

Mahatma Gandhi’s original name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was born in Rajkot in Gujarat on the 2nd October 1869. His father Karamchand Gandhi was the Prime Minister of Rajkot. His mother Putlibhai was a saintly lady.

He took his early education in Rajkot and after passing the Entrance Examination; he went to England and became a lawyer.  Gandhi practised law in the Bombay High Court. Then he went to South Africa and joined the bar. 

In 1915 he returned to India and took the leadership of the Indian National Congress and started several movements against the British. At last under his leadership, India got independence from the British on 15th August 1947. 

I admire him the most. It is because he sacrificed his life for the cause of our nation. Besides this, he tried his best to unite Hindus and Muslims.

He was a great social worker also. He tried to banish untouchability and communalism from India. He gave much importance to the development of the cottage industry in India. He introduced Basic Education in India. He was a writer also. His autobiography My Experience with Truth is praised by millions of readers. He was assassinated by a fanatic Hindu named Nathuram Godse on 30th January 1948. 

We should follow the great ideals of Mahatma Gandhi. 0 0 0

Note: This article ‘ Mahatma Gandhi | Life of a Great Man ‘ originally belongs to the book ‘ School Essays Part-I ‘ by Menonim Menonimus.

Books of Composition by M. Menonimus:

• Advertisement Writing

Amplification Writing

• Note Making
• Paragraph Writing
• Notice Writing
• Passage Comprehension
• The Art of Poster Writing
• The Art of Letter Writing
• Report Writing
• Story Writing
• Substance Writing
• School Essays Part-I
• School Essays Part-II
• School English Grammar Part-I
• School English Grammar Part-II ..

Related Search:

• Essay on Mahatma Gandhi
• Mahatma Gandhi

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

The great wall of china | its history, the north pole expeditions, the origin and evolution of printing press, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Posts

The origin and evolution of telescope, the origin and evolution of atom bomb.

• Being a Good Person
• About Myself

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Essay on Mahatma Gandhi [100, 150, 200, 300, 500 Words]

Essay on Mahatma Gandhi in English: In this article, you are going to read short and long essays on Mahatma Gandhi in English (100, 150, 200-250, 300, and 500 words). This article will be also helpful for you If you are looking for a speech on Mahatma Gandhi or Paragraph on Mahatma Gandhi in English. We’ve written this article for students of all classes (nursery to class 12). So, let’s get started.

Table of Contents

Short Essay on Mahatma Gandhi 100 Words

Mahatma Gandhi was one of the greatest leaders of our country. He was born in Porbandar, India, on October 2, 1869. His father Karamchand Gandhi was the Dewan and his mother Putlibai was a pious lady. Gandhiji went to England to become a barrister. In 1893 he went to South Africa and worked for the rights of our people.

He returned to India in 1915 and joined the freedom struggle. He started many political movements like Non-cooperation movement, Salt Satyagraha, Quit India Movement to fight against the British. Gandhiji worked for the ending of the caste system and the establishment of Hindu-Muslim unity. He was killed by Nathuram Godse On January 30, 1948.

Mahatma Gandhi Essay in English 150 Words

Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader. His full name was Mohandas and Gandhi. He was born on October 2, 1869 at Porbandar. His father was a Diwan. He was an average student. He went to England and returned as a barrister.

In South Africa, Gandhiji saw the bad condition of the Indians. There he raised his voice against it and organised a movement.

In India, he started the non-cooperation and Satyagraha movements to fight against the British Government. He went to jail many times. He wanted Hindu-Muslim unity. In 1947, he got freedom for us.

Gandhiji was a great social reformer. He worked for Dalits and lower-class people. He lived a very simple life. He wanted peace. He believed in Ahimsa.

On January 30, 1948, he was shot dead. We call him ‘Bapu’ out of love and respect. He is the Father of the Nation.

Also Read: 10 Lines on Mahatma Gandhi

Essay on Mahatma Gandhi 200-250 Words

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi was an Indian lawyer, freedom activist, and politician. Gandhiji was born on October 2, 1869 at Porbandar, Gujarat. His father Karamchand Gandhi was the Chief Minister (diwan) of Porbandar state. His mother Putlibai was a religious woman.

He went to England to study law at the age of 18 years. After his return to India, he started a practice as a lawyer in the Bombay High Court. He went to South Africa and started practicing law. There he protested against the injustice and harsh treatment of the white people towards the native Africans and Indians.

He returned to India in 1915 and started to take interest in politics. Mahatma Gandhi used the ideals of truth and non-violence as weapons to fight against British colonial rule. He worked for the upliftment of Harijans. He fought against untouchability and worked for Hindu-Muslim unity.

Through his freedom movements like Non-cooperation movement, Khilafat movement, and civil disobedience movement he fought for freedom against the British imperialists. 1942, he launched the Quit India movement to end the British rule. At last, India got freedom in 1947 at his initiative.

People affectionately call him ‘Bapu’ and the ‘Father of the Nation’. He was shot dead in 1948 by the Hindu fanatic Nathuram Godse.  Gandhiji’s life is a true inspiration for all of us.

Mahatma Gandhi Essay in English 300 Words

Mahatma Gandhi was born at Porbandar in Gujarat on 2nd October, 1869. His father was the Diwan of the State. His name was Karam Chand Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi’s full name was Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi. His mother’s name was Putali Bai. Mahatma Gandhi went to school first at Porbandar then at Rajkot. Even as a child, Mahatma never told a lie. He passed his Matric examination at the age of 18.

Mohan Das was married to Kasturba at the age of thirteen. Mahatma Gandhi was sent to England to study law and became a Barrister. He lived a very simple life even in England. After getting his law degree, he returned to India.

Mr. Gandhi started his law practice. He went to South Africa in the course of a law suit. He saw the condition of the Indians living there. They were treated very badly by the white men. They were not allowed to travel in 1st class on the trains, also not allowed to enter certain localities, clubs, and so on. Once when Gandhiji was travelling in the 1st class compartment of the train, he was beaten and thrown out of the train. Then Mahatma decided to unite all Indians and started the Non-violence and Satyagrah Movement. In no time, the Movement picked up.

Mahatma Gandhi returned to India and joined Indian National Congress. He started the Non-violence, Non-cooperation Movements here also. He travelled all over India, especially the rural India to see the conditions of the poor.

Mahatma Gandhi started Satyagrah Movement to oppose the Rowlatt Act and there was the shoot-out at Jalian-Wala-Bagh. The Act was drawn after many people were killed. He then started the Salt Satyagraha and Quit India Movements. And finally, Gandhiji won freedom for us. India became free on 15th August, 1947. He is called as “Father of the Nation”. Unfortunately, Gandhiji was shot on 30 January 1948 by a Hindu extremist Nathuram Godse.

Also Read: Gandhi Jayanti Speech 10 Lines

Mahatma Gandhi Essay in English 500 Words

Introduction:.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi was a politician, social activist, writer, and leader of the Indian national movement. He is a figure known all over the world. His name is a household word in India, rather, in all the world round. His creed of non-violence has placed him on the same par with Buddha, Sri Chaitanya, and Jesus Christ.

Family & Education:

Mahatma Gandhi was born in the small town of Porbandar in the Kathiwad state on October 2, 1869. His father Karamchand Gandhi was the prime minister of Rajkot State and his mother Putlibai was a pious lady. Her influence shaped the future life of Mahatma Gandhi.

He was sent to school at a very early age, but he was not a very bright student. After his Matriculation Examination, he went to England to study law and returned home as a barrister. He began to practice law in Bombay but he was not very successful.

Life in South Africa:

In 1893 Gandhiji went to South Africa in connection with a case. He found his own countrymen treated with contempt by the whites. Gandhiji started satyagraha against this color hated. It was a non-violent protest, yet hundreds were beaten up and thousands were sent to jail. But Gandhiji did not buzz an inch from his faith in truth and non-violence and at last, he succeeded in his mission. He was awarded the title of Mahatma.

Fight for India’s Independence:

In 1915 Gandhiji came back to India after twenty long years in South Africa. He joined the Indian National congress and championed the cause of India’s freedom movement. He asked people to unite for the cause of freedom. He used the weapons of truth and non-violence to fight against the mighty British.

The horrible massacre at Jalianwalabag in Punjab touched him and he resolved to face the brute force of the British Government with moral force. In 1920 he launched the Non-cooperation movement to oppose British rule in India.

He led the famous Dandi March on 12th March 1930. This march was meant to break the salt law. And as a result of this, the British rule in India had already started shaking and he had to go to London for a Round Table Conference in 1931. But this Conference proved abortive and the country was about to give a death blow to the foreign rule.

In 1942 Gandhiji launched his final bout for freedom. He started the ‘Quit India’ movement. At last, the British Government had to quit India in 1947, and India was declared a free country on August 15, 1947.

Social Works:

Mahatma Gandhi was a social activist who fought against the evils of society. He found the Satyagraha Ashram on the banks of the Sabarmati river in Gujarat. He preached against untouchability and worked for Hindu-Muslim unity. He fought tirelessly for the rights of Harijans.

Conclusion:

Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation was a generous, god-loving, and peace-loving person. But unfortunately, he was assassinated by Nathuram Godse on 30th January 1948 at the age of 78. To commemorate Gandhiji’s birth anniversary Gandhi Jayanti is celebrated every year on October 2. Gandhiji’s teachings and ideologies will continue to enlighten and encourage us in the future.

Read More: 1. Essay on Swami Vivekananda 2. Essay on Subhash Chandra Bose 3. Essay on Mother Teresa 4. Essay on APJ Abdul Kalam 5. Essay on Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Related Posts

Apj abdul kalam essay in english | 100, 200, 300, 500 words, blood donation essay in english | 150, 200, 300 words, my mother essay in english 10 lines [5 sets], essay on mother teresa in english for students [300 words], leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.